曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

Never before, and not since, has any commercial body, where there has been a question of injury to employees, attempted to bring me into a meeting to influence my views and to ask directly for a retraction of my views.79
2.83 The Committee notes also evidence to the Committee from Dr Chris van Netten, whose research on cabin air quality has been used by one airline to assert that BAe 146 cabin air is safe and healthy. Dr van Netten, stated:
My statement that British Aerospace has been quoting has also apparently come up, where I make the statement that the air quality in a BAe 146-200 is the same, if not better in certain conditions, than a Dash-8 Aircraft. This is only under conditions where everything is functioning normally, and this is quite correct. The air in a normally operating, properly functioning aircraft is the same as in a Dash-8 and is quite a normal experience. There is nothing wrong with that but they stop there. They do not mention, for instance, that I also make other conclusions which they do not always seem to be quoting me on. So I call it a case of selective quotation from my reports.80
77  Ansett Australia, Evidence, 1 May 2000, p 243 
78  See various submissions; eg, Submissions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27 and 28. 
79  Dr Mark Donohoe, Evidence, 1 February 2000, p 94 

2.84 The Committee views this evidence from two medical professionals with some concern. The Committee notes these views reinforce the need for further research on this issue, as recommended by the Committee in Chapter 6.
80 Associate Professor C van Netten, Evidence, 14 March 2000, p 22

 

CHAPTER THREE
SYMPTOMS OF ILLNESS AND POSSIBLE SOURCES
3.1 The central issue in this inquiry is whether health effects result from exposure to oil fumes in aircraft cabin air. Current medical science and technology available for measuring and analysing the clinical effects of exposure to minute combinations of chemicals are both relatively new. The Committee received submissions from several medical and occupational health professionals supporting claims by flight crew that exposure to fumes on BAe 146 aircraft resulted in deterioration of their health.1
3.2 The Committee is also aware that the Industrial Court of New South Wales has acknowledged that exposure to fumes on a BAe 146 exacerbated a pre-existing illness suffered by former Ansett flight attendant Alysia Chew.
3.3 One medical professional, Dr Robert Loblay, gave evidence to the Committee arguing that there are no health effects as a result of exposure to fumes. Unfortunately, his evidence consisted largely of attacking the personal and professional integrity and status of other witnesses. Dr Loblay did not supply a written submission to the inquiry.
3.4 The majority of the professional witnesses to the inquiry highlighted an absence of clinical testing of flight crew and passengers immediately after their exposure to fumes. In the absence of equipment sensitive enough to detect all potential chemical components present in human tissue following a fume exposure incident, it appears difficult to measure the health consequences of fume exposure.
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the BAe 146 Aircraft(32)